113 comments:

Glad, of course, the John Edwards never became a running candidate. Just like Ted Kennedy didn't. From self-inflicted wounds.

I'd much prefer watching the IMF take a bath. And, the maid in the DKS case not get vilified.

But I'm talking about a different arch. One that's good for the people takes a bad guy off. While going after John Edwards is just dumb.

Think about the little girl! One did get produced, you know. Because like Schwartzenegger ... the sperm toodles. While the man refuses to use a condom. Seeing children, born, however, should be a joy ride.

Just think. With all the lambasting the left hereabouts do to the current crop of GOP hopefuls, John Edwards, possibly one of the absolutely most slimy politicians in my memory, almost became their guy.

The whole "affair" is an indictment of the MSM's ability to perform their Constitutional duty.

This woman gave a whole new meaning to the term "Batshit crazy" She could have sold lessons to Loony Tunes.

This might well explain her appeal. Bat shit crazy women are dramatic fucks. If you're right, I can see how Edwards was drawn in.

That he didn't seems to me to prove how stupid John Edwards is. This is more than a man thinking with his dick. His dick should have been smart enough to avoid this woman.

I like flawed men who think with their dicks, perhaps because I'm inclined that way myself. I don't see how this characteristic makes him different from JFK or Clinton. Seems a common characteristic of politically powerful men.

Lots of people feel sorry for Elizabeth Edwards but lets not forget that she was an evil, evil, woman. She was so focused on being first lady that she let this go on while hubby was running for Prez.

Don't get this at all. Why was she evil? Because she made accommodations to the reality of her life? She was supposed to be immune to the desire for money and power? Are you sure she was letting this go on, or was she simply powerless to do anything about it?

"The United States Department of Justice has green-lighted the prosecution ..."

Note they don't say that a grand jury has indicted Edwards. In fact, they're very careful to NOT say that. ABCNews only claims some unnamed entity has "green lighted" a possible prosecution.

Isn't that a strange way to report this issue? Why not just let the grand jury do its work and either return a bill of indictment or not?

Why are Justice Department employees leaking to their friends in the press (and through the press directly to Edwards) their plans? Isn't leaking your plans to your legal opponent kind of stupid?

I'll believe that Barack Obama's Democrat Party Justice Department will prosecute Democrat Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards when they seek an actual indictment against him and get a bill returned.

Not until then.

They're PROTECTING him by leaking to him through the press because he's a Democrat.

johnroberthenry said: "This woman gave a whole new meaning to the term "Batshit crazy"...She is the kind of woman that any man with a room temperature IQ would run as far and as fast from as possible."

John, you're apparently unfamiliar with a certain theory: Crazy in the head, crazy in the bed.

Prediction:John Edwards will never, ever see the inside of a jail cell.

John Edwards is part of the elite. An elite that you cannot join and do not know.

And the elite don't go to jail unless they steal from other elite (Madoff) or rape the help (Strauss-Kahn).

And Strauss-Kahn will never see the inside of a jail cell again either. Because the penalty for raping the help is a $1 million fine (paid for as if it was bail) and a free one-way ticket to Scot-free France.

Carol, you seem to be arguing that politicians should be free from threat of prosecution for using their campaign funds to support a whole harem of mistresses, so long as the unholy union results in bastard spawn.

To protect the children, after all.

Or am I misinterpreting your comment? Because that's certainly possible; to be honest, I'm not sure what half of your comment even means -- IMF baths and arches and 'sperm toodles' (??) and whatnot.

"Even his enemies like Clinton. Generally, I think that people regard Clinton as a likable bastard who can't keep his dick in his pants."

Edwards is not a likeable bastard. Even his "friends" realized he was as gross a human being as they come. John Kerry (!!) was disgusted with Edwards. Apparently, Edwards told him the same story twice and told him each time he'd never told anyone that story before. Ugh.

The whole "affair" is an indictment of the MSM's ability to perform their Constitutional duty.

To be fair, ScottM they have NO “constitutional duty.” There’s NO duty to inform, they have a RIGHT to publish, free from Prior Restraint. They want you to think they have a DUTY, and that they are DUTIFUL, and that therefore their words are true or useful…but really that’s all a lie. They have a right to publish, to lie, to obfuscate, to ignore the truth, and most of all to sell Soap Powder (A duty they seem to have forgotten, if their bottom-lines and share prices are to be believed). There’s no “constitutional duty” for the Press, just like you don’t have the duty to assemble, to speak, petition for redress, to worship, or be free of a National Church…you have a RIGHT to these things, not a duty to perform them…

So if the NYT, LAT, ChiTrib, Strib, and the like DIDN’T cover Edwards and Rielle they did not fail in some duty…they simply revealed themselves to be partisan Democrats and it hurt them, a bit. I don’t like calling your rights “duties”, because a duty is something you HAVE to perform, whereas a “right” is something you may or may not exercise, as YOU choose. Once something is a “duty” busy bodies start trying to make sure you DO your “duty” and trying to compel you to do your “duty” and making rules about how and when, and how you MUST “do your duty.” Freedom, to vote, to publish, to worship, or not means the ability to do or NOT DO, without comment or coercion from others.

So no there’s no “Constitutional Duty” to inform anyone of anything…there’s only a market niche to be filled and the right to fill or not fill that niche as the owners and editors choose to fill or not fill it.

Yes, we truly dodged a bullet in 2004. But, to be fair to Edwards we must admit that root of the evil was the top of the ticket. Edwards is an amoral crank with a peculiar taste in women, but the he was John Kerry's choice, wasn't he?

Kerry, the artificial Irishman, (the Democrats are making this a habit, aren't they?) hasn't been asked to comment on the Edwards/Hunter scandal, one must wonder whether this is a case of the MSM backfilling to help protect Kerry's re-election campaign, and as long as he's allowed to escape scrutiny on the question of misuse of funds Kerry will welcome the trial since it helps him make the case that Edwards was the neck-tied millstone with drowned his bid for presidential power. Interestingly the Swift-Boat excuse hasn't been made lately, probably because the long-hidden Kerry military records have remained hidden.

BTW, we often take Althouse to task over her addlepated suport for Obama in 2008. But was this an uncharacteristic move, or just merely another instance of a well-established pattern. How did Althouse vote in 2004?

Maybe because she doesn't use phrases like "sperm toodles" in backhanded and disjointed defenses of liberals from the perspective of a pseudo-conservative, and doesn't want to be mistaken for someone who does.

I don't like to see this criminalizing of politics by accusing someone who plays but loses of paperwork criminal acts. No one can say whether the money paid to a bimbo by friends was a contribution to a campaign. But the ambitious Feds often try to convict the innocent to assert their power. That is why juries are necessary.

I'm with Allen on this. Why is this a legal issue? Campaign funds were used, to cover up a bimbo eruption. Big deal. the Feds have plenty to do without chasing a washed up candidate who couldn't keep his pants on. I would think the dishonor of denying his own child would be sufficient, although Edwards probably is narcissistic enough to believe otherwise.

Soooooo how many of you Republicans know Democrats who kept their Kerry-EDWARDS bumper stickers on their cars for 4 years (as a way to protest President Bush)? I know a couple. And now when they attack a Republican, I just say "but you had a John Edwards bumper sticker on your car for 4 years. What was his quote? Oh year, 'don't worry. She'll be dead pretty soon'".

I would think the dishonor of denying his own child would be sufficient, although Edwards probably is narcissistic enough to believe otherwise.

That's a good enough reason for me to prosecute him. How long will the American people allow someone like Edwards to get away with things just because - and this is the galling part - Edwards doesn't care?

I say MAKE HIM CARE!

And the rest of you should, too. (People always seem to care when it's "the little people.") I, for one, am tired of living in a relativist's paradise:

Lots of people feel sorry for Elizabeth Edwards but lets not forget that she was an evil, evil, woman. She was so focused on being first lady that she let this go on while hubby was running for Prez.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call her “evil” but I do remember how during the 2004 campaign she said that Vice President and Mrs. Cheney were ashamed of their daughter for being a lesbian which was obviously not true. I have a hard time thinking of anything said that is more vile than saying a parent doesn’t love their own child.

Well Crack, I think Edwards is a narcissistic jerk. I think cheating on your wife is poor behavior. I think publicly denying paternity of your child is beyond reprehensible. I think Edwards is a two faced, mendacious politician (but I repeat myself), and I think he is willing to demagogue any issue he can (including the death of his son) to gain power for himself.

Thomas -- At the end of the day, Clinton proved to be a solid statesman. He was a long-time governor. He was attorney general. He was likable. And he seems to be genuinely a man of the people and a dedicated public servant.

What about Edwards? He was a senator only because he had made a fortune as an ambulance-chasing attorney. He was a senator only for a few years. He had no political experience before that. Nothing about him indicates depth. Nothing about his actual lifestyle indicates populism or dedication to public service. There is no wave or even a trickle of indication that Edwards is immensely likable.

Ultimately, you are comparing Edwards and Clinton because they both had affairs. Many, many men and women fall into that category.

Scott -- The best part is that our "poor" have plumbing, heat and air conditioning, cars, garages, and color televisions. And they're all fat!

I mean, really. Come on, J, you douche. People like you will never, ever give up your bitching and whining about the poor. The racket's too good. Perpetually, you and your dumb, guilt-ridden ilk want to take a bunch of money and set up programs to help these alleged poor (and, by the way, have staffers who make good salaries doling out the money).

I mean, really. Come on, J, you douche. People like you will never, ever give up your bitching and whining about the poor. The racket's too good.

Seven... no, no, no, and no! They truly, honest-to-god, without a doubt believe their own crap. They really, really do. Their moralistic tale where the poor are oppressed, the rich are guilty, and social justice is just around the corner is the main reward. The perks of power are secondary.

The fact that they believe it just makes them true morons. It would be slightly honorable -- in a way that, say, piracy is slightly honorable -- to be using this impossible-to-achieve rhetoric about ending poverty as a way to achieve power.

"'How did Althouse vote in 2004?' She claims to have voted for GWB in 2004, after a lot of soul searching. If you can find them, there were some blog pieces right before that election detailing her decision process. Keep in mind that she teaches at the University of Wisconsin, in the People's Republic of Madison. This was pretty radical for her at the time."

I was blogging then, and this is all on the blog, where all my colleagues and people of Madison can see it and hate me for it. Google Althouse and "how kerry lost me" to see my analysis of my own blog posts going back through the campaign.

2004 was one of 2 times I've voted for a Republican for President. The other one was Gerald Ford. I've voted in every presidential election beginning with 1972. (And yes that means I voted both against and for Carter and against and for GWB.)

'Did you actually mention how much you bench in forum where you expect to be taken seriously?'

And more than likely lie about it. Our boyo, J, just doesn't project the sort of self-assurance that sort of physical competence gives one. People like that don't feel the need to make tough talk behind the protection of their monitors.

You could also choose between a person and a choice to abstain from voting. In that case, the person could loose you at any point in the campaign.

Echoing someone from yesterday, the administration, faced with congressional realities, has already decided there won't be any meaningful legislation this year and is preparing to go full-metal-campaigning.

Having nothing to do with the current President, re-election bids are all the more reason for our presidents to serve one 4 or 6 year term and be done forever.

You have to understand J/Jeremy's worldview. Once you understand his delusions, the origin of his bullshit is clear.

In his world, He is not only a top-notch athlete, but a first-class scientific mind. Conservatives cannot have a scientific mind; the most a conservative can become is 'Business School trash', because only BRILLIANT, clear-thinking liberals like himself can become scientists.

So, by calling you such-as-such MBA, he's telling you that's all you can be.

J is so dumb, however, that he has gotten into scientific discussions before, with predictable results. So, don't lose your cool with J; he's as much of a loser in the gym as he is in the mind. It is just that you can hide your fat, flabbly body behind a computer monitor, in a way you cannot hide a fat, flabby mind.

I'll simply go back to scrolling past someone posing as a barely intelligible Turing test. It just caught my attention that someone old enough to know how to type would brag about how much they can bench.

It caught my attention that someone tried to say with a straight face that President John Edwards was going to somehow end poverty -- a relative problem all societies have wrestled with since the beginning of humanity.

I continue to await the specifics of this plan. But all I get is bragging about weightlifting. Curious.

J is very progressive...so much that he understood Edwards had discovered the Malthus method to solve poverty: make food prices high so that food becomes unavailable and medicine is barely there. This will start wars of rebellion that make food and medical care more unavailable and then the weakened poor people will easily be killed by disease. Voila! The remaining population takes the dead people's stuff and is no longer poor. Abortion prevents new people who will only want a share. If goods then run out, simply repeat the method again. This will ends poverty.

'confused by someone who dares refer to like something as empirical as Edwards' economic policies.'

Yet you can't articulate them. You are totally daunted by the prospect to the point that you ignore repeated requests that you even attempt to back up your jackassery.

BTW: On Mencken - you tried to pass yourself off as understanding where Mencken was coming from. And you got owned. I'll say it again, Mencken would have considered you a risible chucklehead.

One bit of advice. You bluster and threaten up to the point of laser sighting someone's forehead. That's the sort of thing that could get YOU a visit from - how did you put it? ah, yes - 'ttthe pigs'.

Another bit of advice. About the threats to trace people by IP. It is just another bit of bluster from you, BUT, the internet is forever, binky. I could trace you in less than an hour were I to think it worth the effort.

I wonder, just who you believe you impress. Well, actually I don't wonder that at all.

2004 was one of 2 times I've voted for a Republican for President. The other one was Gerald Ford. I've voted in every presidential election beginning with 1972. (And yes that means I voted both against and for Carter and against and for GWB.)

I do remember well the blog posts. I just wasn't in a position to say how you voted, just how you said you voted - only you could do that. Probably nit picking that a non-lawyer wouldn't appreciate. In any case, hope I didn't step on your toes there. That wasn't the intent.

BTW - what is interesting here is that Ann really did appear to agonize over this decision. I don't think that most of us do. Likely indicia that she is a thoughtful moderate, as opposed to rabid partisans and indifferent moderates, which, I will suggest, describes the bulk of the voting population.

I lean toward incumbents. I never think anyone deserves to be President. Once he is President, I can at least conceive of him as President.

Does this mean that you have already decided to vote to reelect Obama and Biden? Or that you will seriously consider such based on this? Or, is it really much too early to be thinking about this? (i.e. I am giving you an easy out here)

Assuming you never failed to vote in a Presidential election, and further assuming you didn't go seriously off-kilter and rolled the dice with a 3rd party or independent candidate, your voting record is:

George McGovern (Only a hippie girl with an exceptional intellect could be expected to do otherwise)

Gerald R. Ford (A gutsy move, the scold from Plains was the anti-Nixon, was he not?)

Jimmuh Cahtah (What could possibly move you to support Carter in 1980 having voted for Ford in '76? Pity, or opposition to Ronald Reagan?)

Walter Mondale (This is either a case of blatant Nordic solidarity, or you just couldn't abide the damage being done to Keynesian economic theory. C- for probity)

Michael Dukakis (WTF? Make that D)

Bill Clinton (Oestradiol effect)

Bill Clinton (One has to admit after being suitably restrained by a Republican Congress Bill didn't do badly in Term 1. And yet character is destiny, and WJC didn't fail to disappoint, did he?)

Al Gore (A voting recording like this is an argument against universal suffrage)